Word on the Street: GOP candidates pull punches until after debate

Sunday

Jan 26, 2014 at 5:00 PMJan 26, 2014 at 5:05 PM

Chris Kaergard and Nick Vlahosof the Journal Star

One of the orders of the day at Thursday's Republican gubernatorial debate for the three candidates — Bill Brady, Kirk Dillard and Dan Rutherford — who trail venture capitalist Bruce Rauner in the polls was to set themselves apart. And to some extent they tried to, playing up their experience, their legislative bona fides, their knowledge of the nuances of government.

With few exceptions, though — Dillard's reference to the "drip, drip, drip" of potential scandal was a glancing one at best — they stayed away from direct attacks on Rauner. Until after the television lights went off, that is.

Each candidate spent 10 minutes afterward talking to the media, and it wasn't until Dillard spoke — the last of the candidates, after Rauner had left the building — that he leveled his most serious attacks.

Those include noting that now-convicted Rod Blagojevich pal Stuart Levine voted to send $50 million pension business to Rauner's old firm, GTCR, at the same time he was working under contract with a company that GTCR had a minority stake in. And that GTCR's ownership of nursing home companies has been linked to abuse of residents and mismanagement from those put in charge who had no nursing home experience.

"People have died," Dillard said, holding up media reports and insisting that there's a cost to a "my-way-or-the-highway" approach common in the investment field.

(For the record, on that first claim Rauner's team notes that Levine was contracting for the company long before GTCR ever invested, and previously indicated in other reports that Rauner was unaware of Levine's contractual role.)

Dillard also alluded to concerns Rauner can't understand the concerns of average Illinoisans, with his multiple homes from Chicago to Winnetka to Montana and elsewhere.

"He's not going to be able to buy his 10th mansion" in Springfield, Dillard said.

But if this stuff is so important, why wait until the debate is over, until the guy is out of the building, to bring it all up? You always come up with your best comebacks once the argument is over, but this was not unintentional, as the visual aids attest.

Leaders confront problems straight on and speak bluntly. There are a lot of questions people are likely to have about someone like Rauner, who is new to public scrutiny. Candidates should raise those things when voters are paying attention, not play ring-and-run. (C.K.)

Well, it's legal

Just because something is unusual or appears shady doesn't mean it's against the law.

That's something critics of U.S. Rep. Aaron Schock — and for that matter, every other member of Congress — should keep in mind, and perhaps work to change, if "donor swapping" is that objectionable to the public.

Schock was among congressmen named last week in newspapers from New York to Peoria in stories about the practice. It appears to take advantage of a loophole in campaign finance law.

In 2010, the maximum legal donation an individual can give to a congressional candidate per election was $2,400. (Now, it's $2,600.) Including the general election and the primary, that amounted to $4,800. In donor swapping, a contributor who gave the maximum to Candidate A donates to Candidate B. Then, the Candidate B donor contributes an identical sum to Candidate A.

Apparently, this scenario took place with donors to Schock of Peoria and Michael Grimm of New York, a fellow Republican congressman. Neither representative has been accused of illegalities. But the FBI arrested a Houston woman who is alleged to have paid a donor $4,800.

"What you can't do is say, 'Hey, I'm going to give you five grand, now you make the donation,'" Schock said. "You can't give people money.

"If you want to make a donation, I can say, 'Hey, Michael Grimm is a great guy, Aaron Schock is a great guy.' That's what I do, and that's what many members of Congress do, many people in the political field."

Schock makes no secret of that tactic because it's legal. Both major political parties sponsor programs that foster it. The Democrats call it "Red to Blue." The Republicans call it "Young Guns."

Some people might call it a violation of the spirit of campaign finance law. That case can be made.

But donor swapping isn't going away unless a significant number of people are vexed enough about it to protest to their federal representatives. Given the level of apathy and low-information voting that seems to permeate our society, we're not holding our breath. (N.V.)

Redistricting dramatics

Schock toured the Madison Theater last week, in part to hype his support of tax credits designed to help offset the cost of renovating historic buildings.

The Downtown Peoria landmark, like most of the city south of War Memorial Drive, no longer is in Schock's district. The Madison is in the district of Cheri Bustos, a Democrat from East Moline.

Some who participated in Schock's tour wondered why Bustos wasn't there, too. Perhaps she was visiting an already-renovated downtown historic theater in her district, the Coronado. That facility is in Rockford, 140 miles north of Peoria.

Consider this Exhibit 1,395 regarding the absurdities of how political districts are assembled in Illinois. Bustos' district is drawn to favor a Democrat. Schock's district is drawn to favor a Republican.

In the process, many cities are dissected and diluted. Schock's district also includes portions of Bloomington, Normal and Springfield, for example.

"I have 205 towns in my district," Schock said. "Peoria is one of the towns in my district. It's also the town I grew up in. So regardless of what my friends in Springfield did to gerrymander my district, I'm obviously always looking out for central Illinois, particularly Peoria."

We also might suggest always looking out for those petitions circulated by activists who seek to change how redistricting in Illinois is conducted. They're trying to get the question on the November ballot. (N.V.)

Chris Kaergard (C.K.) covers politics and Peoria County government for the Journal Star. He can be reached at 686-3135 or ckaergard@pjstar.com. Follow him on Twitter @ChrisKaergard. Nick Vlahos (N.V.) covers Peoria City Hall. He can be reached at 686-3285 or nvlahos@pjstar.com. Follow him on Twitter @VlahosNick. Read their blog online at www.pjstar.com/blogs/wordonweb.

Note: This story was updated Sunday night to clarify the relationship between Stuart Levine and a company which Rauner's firm had a minority stake in.